User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2017/March

Please comment on Chris Capoccia
We are having the same problems with Wikipedian Chris Capoccia's bibliographic edits that you had cited months ago for a different but similar edit. These repeated edit efforts are on Emily Ying Yang Chan, an article I've been watching carefully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_Capoccia MaynardClark (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix for nested templates
However, a question. I'm trying to categorize so it shows in the "general fixes" section of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/autowikibrowser/. How do I do that? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, are / a duplicate of ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes duplicates, have closed. To move a task put mouse cursor on whitespace within task's box and click + drag to move to another column. Rjwilmsi  20:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, click and drag interface. Did not expect that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Nader El-Bizri" article for your attention!
Dear Rjwilmsi, based on your technical knowledge and your role as longstanding master editor on Wikipedia, I wanted to bring an urgent matter to your attention: It seems that I caused some confusions around the Wikipedia entry "Nader El-Bizri" when I first un-did an edit with tags and then contacted the Wikipedia NoticeBoard & Miscellaneous Queries about it without knowing that a casual editor like me should not do so! Tags were placed on the entry and even some suggested that it should be deleted altogether, or that it was copied from the website of a school in Lebanon even though this Wikipedia entry dates back to 2008, and it is clear that it was Mirrored by the school and not the other way round. Some editors might have acted in haste but with the good intention of protecting the entry from vandalism. This Wikipedia article received over 359 edits since 2008, including some by you, and it has numerous links across Wikipedia and to many reputable external websites as well. I am just bringing this to your attention since maybe my unintentional confusions with my casual edits caused all of these editorial issues, and I do not want that my casual edits result in harm to the reputation of the actual living person who is covered by the article, and who based on the various Google searches has a broad public persona of notability. I have been dismissed by the editors who hold usernames since I am not registered via Wikipedia and I only casually edit here and there when I can. I hope you do not mind me bringing this matter to your attention... I have understood now that as a casual editor I am not allowed to make edits or contribute as such to talk pages unless I am fully registered with Wikipedia (or at least this is what has been conveyed to me through the talk pages by some users). Thank you for your consideration of this matter since I feel partly responsible for some of this editorial confusion and I feel I should not longer make edits... Thank you 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:DCDF:6069:402F:B06 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fritz Menzer
Howdy, the last two edit's on the above article and Short Weather Cipher, snapped a couple of references. Something duplicate tags.scope_creep (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorted now. Rjwilmsi  21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * hanks.scope_creep (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING
Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's ... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

B-Diesnt
Hi Rjwilms, I reverted the above. When I requested the Taylor and Francis access, one of the requirements of access, is that it must have the name in the reference. You removed it. Also you lost the issue number. I think it may be important, but not sure. It is a journal, so I suppose the doi number point to it directly, but it is nice to have an issue. Maybe it's an older style of reference. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have revised cite again, to retain issue number and set Taylor and Francis as the publisher. I only tend to set issue number when the majority of existing cites have it, as some editors consider it unnecessary. Thanks Rjwilmsi  11:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)